DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nemeth et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayers for Silicon Passivated Contacts”).
Regarding claim 1, Nemeth discloses a device (silicon solar cell; see Figure 1) comprising:
a silicon layer (nCz);
a dielectric layer having a thickness (SiO2);
a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) having a thickness (SAM); and
a layer comprising a semiconductor (p type poly-Si), wherein:
the dielectric layer is positioned between the SAM and the silicon layer (see third image in Figure 1), the SAM is positioned between the layer comprising the semiconductor and the silicon layer (see third image in Figure 1), the SAM comprises a plurality of imperfections that pass through the thickness of the SAM (see fifth image in Figure 4, where the SAM layer can be used to pattern the surface of the tunneling SiO2 and poly Si), the dielectric layer comprises a plurality of holes that pass through at least a portion of the thickness of the dielectric layer (see fifth image in Figure 4), the imperfections and the holes are substantially aligned to form a plurality of continuous channels (see fifth image in Figure 4), at least a portion of the channels are at least partially filled with the semiconductor (as set forth in the fourth image in Figure 1), and the channels are capable of charge transport between the silicon layer and the layer comprising the semiconductor (the channels are capable of the recited feature).
Regarding claim 2, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the imperfections comprise at least one of a hole, a crack, an area not covered by the SAM, or a combination thereof (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the dielectric layer comprises at least one of a metal oxide, a metal carbide, a metal nitride, or a combination thereof (metal oxide, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 8, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the metal of the metal oxide comprises at least one of silicon, aluminum, hafnium, tin, zirconium, titanium, zinc, or a combination thereof (silicon, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 9, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the dielectric layer comprises at least one of SiOz, SixNy, or a combination thereof, wherein 0.1 <z<2.5, 0 <x< 2, and 0 < y < 2 (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 10, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the dielectric layer has a thickness between 0.1 nm and 200 nm (the dielectric layer is disclosed to have a thickness between 1.5 nm and 2.3 nm; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a first portion of the plurality of holes terminate with a layer of the dielectric layer remaining in contact with the silicon layer (see fifth image in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer of the dielectric layer remaining has a thickness between 0.8 nm and 2.0 nm, or between 1.1 nm and 1.5 nm, or between 1.3 nm and 1.5 nm (it is disclosed on page 2 that the HMDS functionalization is commonly performed on the order of a few minutes, such that the thickness of the dielectric layer is between 1.5 nm and 2 nm as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a first portion of the plurality of holes penetrate the entire thickness of the dielectric layer (see fifth image of Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a second portion of the plurality of holes penetrate into the silicon layer (see fifth image of Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the semiconductor layer comprises at least one of silicon, titanium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, indium oxide, indium-tin oxide, germanium, arsenic, antimony, aluminum, titanium, indium, molybdenum oxide, carbon, 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis[N,N-di(4- methoxyphenyl)amino]-9,9'-spirobifluorene (spiro-OMeTAD), polymer poly[bis(4- phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA), CdTe, GaAs, AlSb, ZnTe, CdSe, or a combination thereof (silicon, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 18, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the semiconductor layer comprises crystalline silicon (polycrystalline Si; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the crystalline silicon is polycrystalline silicon (as set forth above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayers for Silicon Passivated Contacts”) in view of Stradins et al. (US 2021/0083135).
Regarding claim 3, Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the use of HMDS as the SAM (page 1), but the reference does not expressly disclose the SAM is derived from a plurality of SAM precursors molecules.
Stradins discloses the formation of a SAM (120) on a dielectric layer (110) for a passivated contact photovoltaic cell (see Figure 1) by using an interlayer precursor (115), where the interlayer precursor can be HMDS, DMATMS, APTMS, PEI, PEIE, and/or PDMS ([0051]) and the different functional groups can be tailored depending on desired characteristics ([0052] and [0058]). Stradins further discloses the use of two precursors ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting more than one of the known interlayer precursors to form the SAM in the device of Nemeth, as the selection of different functional groups can be made depending on the desired characteristics, as taught by Stradins above. It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 4, modifiied Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the molecules comprise polyethylenimine (PEI) (as set forth above, PEI is one of the known options for the SAM precursor).
It is noted that absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where at least one of the SAM precursor molecules is PEI in the device of modified Nemeth, such that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, modifiied Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses each molecule comprises silicon (Stradins discloses in an example where HMDS and APTMS are both used as the precursor, such that both comprise silicon; [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, modifiied Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the molecule comprises at least one of hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS), trichlorooctadecylsilane, ((3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane) (APTES), dimethylaminotrimethylsilane, N-methyl-aza-2,2,4-trimethylsilacyclopentane, a cyclic azosilanes, fluoro-alkyl silanes, or a combination thereof (as taught by Stradins and Nemeth, HMDS is a common selection for the SAM precursor).
It is noted that absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where at least one of the SAM precursor molecules is HMDS in the device of modified Nemeth, such that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayers for Silicon Passivated Contacts”) in view of Stradins et al. (US 2021/0083135) in view of Schmaltz et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayers as Patterning Tool for Organic Electronic Devices”).
Regarding claim 15, modifiied Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the plurality of holes are formed through UV exposure or photo-induced patterning (see Figure 4), but the reference does not expressly disclose the plurality of holes has an average diameter between 1 nm and 1000 nm.
Schmaltz discloses SAM patterns are known to be sizes ranging from nanometers to micrometers (2.3 Patterning of Self-Assembled Monolayers), such that photo-induced patterning can achieve features less than 200 nm (2.3.3. Photo-Induced Patterning).
As modified Nemeth is not limited to any specific examples of the size of the plurality of holes and as the size of plurality of holes being less than 200 nm in size through photo-induced patterning of SAMs were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Shmaltz above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the parameters of photo-induced patterning to result in the size of the plurality of holes to be less than 200 nm in the device of modified Nemeth. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 16, modifiied Nemeth discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the plurality of channels is present at a concentration between 1x104 holes/cm2 and 1x1010 holes/cm2.
Schmaltz discloses a density of SAM exposed areas to be 4 channels/2500 µm2 (see Figure 6b), which is 1.6 x 105 channels/cm2.
As modified Nemeth is not limited to any specific examples of the density of the plurality of channels in the SAM and as 1.6 x 105 channels/cm2 patterning of SAMs were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Shmaltz above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the concentration of the plurality of channels to be 1.6 x 105 channels/cm2 in the device of modified Nemeth. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights